Warning: This article contains SPOILERS for Bohemian Rhapsody.
Bohemian Rhapsody may successfully showcase Queen and their sensational songs, but Freddie Mercury doesn’t get the movie treatment he deserves. Mr. Robot's Rami Malek stars as Freddie, alongside Gwilym Lee as Queen's lead guitarist Brian May. X-Men: Apocalypse’s Angel, Ben Hardy, portrays Roger Taylor and Joseph Mazzello plays John Deacon. Aiden Gillen, Tom Hollander, Allen Leach and Mike Myers round off Bohemian Rhapsody’s cast as various managers, who witness the band break free of their humble beginnings and attain stardom.
Indeed, there are plenty of positives that come from a cast like this. Each is a highly talented performer, and every one of them truly embodies their respective roles. By the time that the much-discussed Live Aid concert comes around, it’s hard to not believe that they aren’t the real Queen themselves. This is doubly so for Malek, who truly channels the spirit and wit of Freddie Mercury.
Related: Bohemian Rhapsody's Ending Saves A Bland Queen Movie
Thanks to Queen’s iconic catalog of songs, Bohemian Rhapsody stands as an entertaining visual experience of their musical prowess. But beyond their extraordinary tunes, Bohemian Rhapsody fails to capture what makes these particular musicians the special men that they are. This is to be somewhat expected, given that the film has to wrangle with the legacy of its legendary lead singer; however, the movie also manages to fail Queen’s famous front-man in a myriad of ways.
- This Page: Bohemian Rhapsody Is Too Interested In Queen & Not Freddie Mercury
- Page 2: Sacha Baron Cohen & Queen's Involvement In Bohemian Rhapsody
- Page 3: How Bohemian Rhapsody Compares To Other Biopics & How It Could've Been Better
Bohemian Rhapsody Is Overly Interested In Queen
Bohemian Rhapsody begins with Freddie Mercury’s preparations for the 1985 Live Aid Concert, before it turns back to his modest origins in the early 1970s. Based on this opening, it's assumable that Freddie was to be the movie’s sole focus. In this scenario, Freddie might have served as the audience’s stand-in, as moviegoers would both learn about the music scene and how Mercury fit into that, and to Queen as well. But that’s not the case in Bohemian Rhapsody.
The film quickly rushes to Smile’s first gig together, and then to Queen's sold out stadium performances. From then on, the movie’s interest is upon the unit crafting their songs and performing them. As a musical biopic that’s understandable; the songs are what Queen spent most of their time creating and performing. That’s what they’re most famous for. But there’s such an overriding interest in capturing the spirit of Queen, that Bohemian Rhapsody feels rather impersonal.
Related: 15 Biopics That Were HATED By Their Subjects
This is true even true with Malek’s Mercury, the character whom audiences spend most time with - and this is the heart of Bohemian Rhapsody’s problems. No one denies that the band is comprised of amazingly talented musicians. However, it's safe to say that the band’s crowning jewel is their enigmatic, flamboyant front-man. It’s clear that the filmmakers were aware of just how much sway Freddie holds. The promotional material heavily foregrounds Freddie Mercury, and his life is the main subplot of the film. But Bohemian Rhapsody seems reluctant to fully acknowledge him, or to investigate what inspired or motivated him. Conversely, the film is very quick to point out just how important each musician was to Queen’s success. For example, Brian May gets a whole scene where he explains why he came up with "We Will Rock You".
In short, Bohemian Rhapsody ultimately can’t decide if it wants to be a Queen movie or a Freddie Mercury biopic. The rich yet opposing stories of Mercury, and of Queen, compete for the spotlight and neither get their due. It's obvious that Brian May is a great guitarist, is very intelligent, and is the most measured member of the band. But moviegoers gather very little beyond that. The film never deigns to show his life outside of Queen, so the audience doesn’t know what kind of person he was either. Why did an astrophysicist, a dentist, an electrical engineer, and a Parsi immigrant create such great music together?
Similarly, all the band member's personal issues are skewed towards maintaining the band's legacy. Indeed, this occurs even with Freddie, who discloses his diagnosis to his friends, comes out to his parents, and begins a new relationship all on the same week as their legendary Live Aid performance. This condenses Freddie's personal story, and also overshadows it with the band and their triumph.
How Bohemian Rhapsody Fails Freddie
Freddie Mercury is unique and famous for many reasons. He was a flamboyant performer, but one of the most intensely private stars of his time. Freddie was hugely talented, but he humbly deferred a lot of credit to his band-mates. Additionally, he was known for his acid tongue, but he remained kind and generous – in his own words, "a peach" – to most of the people he met. And much has been made of his heritage and sexuality, neither of which harmed his career in the same way that they would have others. A movie could very well explore any of these qualities in vivid detail.
Yet Bohemian Rhapsody, instead, chooses to merely relay what is already known about Freddie Mercury, rather than finding the human inside the legend, as many other biopics strive to do. He’s the Live Aid performer from start to finish; audiences never see what Freddie failed at, what inspired him, or what changed him. The scenes which develop or solely focus upon his life jostle against Queen’s narrative, meaning that his story – like Queen’s – lacks that thorough, narrative strength. Moreover, a subplot involving Freddie and his disapproving father begins in one of Bohemian Rhapsody’s earliest scenes. But it’s never developed or addressed again until near the movie’s conclusion.
The only reason that many of these scenes hit home as hard as they do is because of Malek’s phenomenal performance. Malek’s strutting and posturing is perfect, and he sells every dramatic moment. The scene where Freddie confesses his orientation to his fiancée is a standout. Malek’s tortured face betrays every one of Freddie’s conflicting thoughts and emotions.
Thankfully, Bohemian Rhapsody doesn’t avoid Freddie’s sexuality, but the movie is hardly a triumph of representation either. Freddie shares several intimate moments with Jim Hutton (Aaron McCusker). But their six-year relationship is mainly relegated to Bohemian Rhapsody's credits sequence. Most of the film, instead, follows his longtime affiliation with Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton). This truly was a relationship that was hugely important to Freddie Mercury. But with Austin in the foreground, the other facets of Freddie's sexuality are sidelined.
Moreover, throughout the film, there's something of a disconnect between Queen and Freddie's orientation. When Freddie begins embracing his queerness in Bohemian Rhapsody, he throws an elaborate costumed ball in his mansion. His friends complain that it's "not their scene" and they leave almost right away. Hutton shares no scenes with the band, other than watching from the sidelines at Live Aid. Conversely, Austin frequently meets up with Queen in the vicinity of their gigs. Bohemian Rhapsody isn’t concerned in contextualizing Freddie beyond his legend unless his normative traits, ultimately, relate back to Queen. It's an odd choice, especially when Freddie's queerness is integral to Queen's output and their success. However, perhaps this to be expected, since when Bohemian Rhapsody does try to tackle Freddie's sexuality, it creates a rather dubious subtext.
This is most evident in the film’s depiction of Paul Prenter (Allen Leech). Prenter is an admittedly contentious figure in Queen’s history, namely for his betrayal of Freddie’s secrets to the media. But this openly gay character is almost cartoonishly evil in the way that he orchestrates Freddie’s apparent descent. The real Freddie often discussed how much he enjoyed his hedonistic lifestyle. Contrastingly, Bohemian Rhapsody’s forays into Freddie’s nightlife are portrayed somewhat differently. Though they’re safe and rating-appropriate, they are interspersed across other sequences, capturing a haggard Freddie in partially-lit situations. Instead of the thrills that came with Freddie’s clubbing – such as the smuggling of Princess Diana into clubs – they come across as disconcerting experiences.
Tensions are shown to build within Queen – thanks to Prenter’s increasing influence and these hedonistic scenes. This isn’t to say that tiredness and drug use wouldn’t exacerbate these issues. However, Freddie is the only character who is depicted as partaking in them. He’s, therefore, positioned as the rogue that has been led astray, and the member who is responsible for the band’s breakup. It's an odd choice, considering that for all his occasional hysterics, Freddie was consistently referred to as the band's "great diplomat."
In truth, the band unanimously decided to take a break at this time. Plus, it was a period in which Brian and Roger – and Freddie, too – all attempted solo work. In Bohemian Rhapsody, Freddie’s desire to follow Paul and “spread his wings” throws them into turmoil and spawns a frosty silence between the band members. As such, Freddie is left punished by his digression from Queen. When he returns and apologizes to the band, it could be interpreted that he is apologizing for the entirety of his lifestyle by default. Given everything that is known about Freddie Mercury, it's rather doubtful that he would have been so regretful about the way in which he lived his life.
Page 2 of 3: Sacha Baron Cohen & Queen's Involvement In Bohemian Rhapsody
The Sacha Baron Cohen Movie Killed Freddie Halfway
The cast and crew behind Bohemian Rhapsody will now enjoy the glamour, and the substantial returns, from its worldwide release. Yet the film has traversed a very rocky road on its journey to the cinema. In December 2017, director Bryan Singer was fired mid-production for his erratic behavior, and 20th Century Fox swiftly replaced him with Dexter Fletcher.
This directorial debacle was not the only switch-up made to Queen's biopic. Sacha Baron Cohen was originally hired to play Freddie Mercury in 2010. However, he famously departed the project several years later, to the dismay of many onlookers. It soon transpired that Cohen had left due to sizable creative differences over the picture. The first of these was the film’s rating; Cohen had envisioned a faithful biopic, which fittingly explored the most gritty and raunchy aspects of Mercury’s lifestyle. Conversely, the band was hoping for something more family-friendly. But, perhaps the most controversial of all the reasons was Cohen revealed that he had amicably left the project after a surviving band member revealed his plans for the film. They wanted the film to depict Freddie dying around the middle of the movie, and the rest of the film would depict how Queen carried on without him.
Cohen’s claims have been hotly disputed since then. Brian May, who has long assumed to be the unnamed band member, denied ever saying this. He and Roger Taylor later responded more aggressively, saying that Cohen was too big of a star for the project and that he was let go so the movie wouldn't become a joke, which is arguably understandable considering the reputation Cohen has established for himself over the years. It’s hard to say whether this plot point was ever on the cards, given how the film eventually turned out. Nevertheless, the dispute yet again betrays the conflict of interest at the heart of Bohemian Rhapsody, along with its overwhelming and decisive interest.
Queen Was Still Heavily Involved In Bohemian Rhapsody
The overwhelming creative interest behind Bohemian Rhapsody is clear in its credits. Queen band members Brian May and Roger Taylor – along with their manager, Jim Beach – are all listed as the film’s producers. With such high-ranking positions in the movie’s production, it’s clear that they will have partly determined how Bohemian Rhapsody portrays them... and Freddie Mercury. Though some fans will be eager to denounce May, Taylor, and Beach for their decisions, audiences shouldn’t be quick to thoroughly demonize them. After all, most of them will have originated not out of malicious intent, but of an understandable human desire. As Cohen once said: if someone is in charge of telling their own life story, why wouldn't they depict themselves in the best way possible?
Moreover, Queen is still touring and selling merchandise to this day. With their brand to consider, it’s clear that a hard-hitting film showing their flaws and failings wouldn’t serve their interests. As such, the truth takes a back seat in lieu of crowd-pleasing fare for business reasons. Be that as it may, Bohemian Rhapsody does perhaps lean too heavily into its rosy portrayal of the band. The film presents the four men as well-meaning, very reasonable, and likable people – even in their minor arguments. This is at odds with real life. Bohemian Rhapsody’s sanitizing of their interplay is most evident in a John Deacon-centric scene. The cracks between band-mates are increasingly showing as tempers begin to rise in the studio. Deacon quite literally ceases the argument by distracting them all with the baseline that he’s been perfecting for "Another One Bites the Dust."
Plus, the film alludes to Freddie’s extreme love of partying, when he greets the band and his fellow revelers in a cape and crown. The filmic May and Taylor express distaste for this decadence, and they soon take their leave. It’s an attitude that’s somewhat at odds with notable sources. In their heyday, it seems that Freddie's fellow Queen members were as enthusiastic about partying as he was. These scenes demonstrate the kind of conflict that occurs between the truth and reputation of Queen during Bohemian Rhapsody's runtime. But it’s not the only film to be compromised like this.
Page 3 of 3: How Bohemian Rhapsody Compares To Other Biopics & How It Could've Been Better
How Bohemian Rhapsody Compares To Great Music Biopics
In their interrogation of real personalities and events, biopics – particularly those made in Hollywood – struggle to negotiate the truth and the sensationalism that sells them. Bohemian Rhapsody isn’t alone in having to deal with prioritizing the glamour and downplaying the grime of their subjects. Straight Outta Compton famously told the tale of N.W.A., sans any mention of Dr Dre’s numerous counts of violence against women. Conversely, Oliver Stone’s The Doors reportedly augmented Jim Morrison’s obsessive nature, much to the consternation of his loved ones. Bohemian Rhapsody doesn’t attempt anything so controversial in its storytelling. However, the film stands apart from its fellow biopics due to its lack of audacity, in terms of authorial style and narrative framework.
As stated earlier, Bohemian Rhapsody charts the majority of Queen’s golden years, with Freddie Mercury as their lead singer. In doing so, the story pivots around the three-stage structure of: their slow rise to fame, their faltering, and then their ascent to glory again. This is a tried and tested formula of biopics. For music biopics, this is doubly so, and it has worked well for other musicians – such as Johnny Cash in Walk the Line. This arguably hurts Bohemian Rhapsody, though, since it has to condense the tales of four characters (which occur over an extended time scale) into a restrictive story structure. On a similar note, Walk the Line was also not afraid of tackling the darker aspects of Cash’s personal life. But Bohemian Rhapsody doesn't interrogate or explore Queen as biopics are meant to do. Rather, it only emphasizes how ill-fitting this approach is for such a trail-blazing band.
Related: Every Queen Song In Bohemian Rhapsody
Queen was comprised of atypical musicians, and they transformed the music scene forever. The filmic version of the band refers to their line-up of contrasting personalities, and how they appeal to the outcasts. But the movie doesn’t support their verve or innovation through its structure or aesthetic. Indeed, there’s little to distinguish it as a Queen film, other than the uncanny casting. That’s not to say that Bohemian Rhapsody should have contained overt flights of fancy, akin to Beyond the Sea. Yet a sense of an offbeat style – similar to the infamous kiss scene in Sid and Nancy – could have emphasized the signature flair that Freddie and Queen were known for.
What Bohemian Rhapsody Should Have Done
Bohemian Rhapsody could have improved its examination of Queen in numerous ways. The filmmakers should have, firstly, opted for a bolder approach to the movie's narrative style. Aside from its initial flash-forward to Live Aid, Bohemian Rhapsody tackles its subjects in a linear way, covering 15 years in the process. While this is not the longest period of time that a biopic has had to adapt, it’s still a considerable amount of time to condense into a two hour movie. This is especially the case if fans follow them nearly every step of the way, as Bohemian Rhapsody does.
Danny Boyle’s biopic of Apple founder Steve Jobs demonstrates a solution to this problem. Steve Jobs pivots around three days involving three key product launches in his career. By doing so, the film is able to focus upon its titular figure, his career, and his relationships, and how each of these evolved, all in a highly detailed manner. It’s a dramatic and engaging avenue through which audiences explore the kind of man that Steve Jobs was – and what he became. Bohemian Rhapsody couldn’t have replicated this structure wholesale. Yet Steve Jobs demonstrates what kind of artistic moves that the film could have made to grapple with Queen’s history, with the kind of daring finesse that they exemplified time and time again.
However, Bryan Singer and his fellow filmmakers should have – first and foremost – established whether they were making a film about Queen or Freddie Mercury. Undoubtedly, one story could not be told without the other, but as it stands, the film has no central focus because it tries to accomplish both.
If Freddie Mercury was intended to be the focus of Bohemian Rhapsody, then the film should have done more to sensitively explore his heritage, his sexuality, and his illness. While the singer famously disliked discussing his private life when he was alive, this is the inescapable purpose of a biopic. A movie doesn’t have to label his orientation – and nor should it – considering the fact that he didn’t in real life. But it’s clear that Bohemian Rhapsody’s rather conservative view of Freddie Mercury’s love life is not a suitable one. It does little to present the fluidity of Freddie’s relationships, or the backdrop against which they occurred.
Moreover, some people may insist that emphasizing Freddie’s love life is not important to the story – or proper, considering how private he was while alive. However, such assertions do not take into account just how integrally linked both Queen’s music and Freddie Mercury’s queerness actually are. It’s a crucial component in their aesthetic, their appeal, and their song writing. The movie’s refusal to acknowledge this is determinate to its purpose as a biographical film. It doesn't strive to understand its subject, but merely to show the band and their music in the best light possible.
As the Live Aid recreation exemplifies, it's Queen’s music that really drives Bohemian Rhapsody. When it's presented so dramatically, the film underscores Queen’s memorable anthems and the idiosyncratic poetry which they are known for. In doing so, it serves as a fine celebration of the band, on the basis of their greatest hits alone. But Bohemian Rhapsody could've offered something else to music fans and moviegoers. Audiences could have learned more about the titular Bohemian musicians and the star at their center – if only the film had broken free.
More: Bohemian Rhapsody's True Story: Everything The Inaccurate Queen Movie Changed
from ScreenRant - Feed https://ift.tt/2F4t7A9
No comments: